Author: GJackson@philadefender.org

Statement on New Prison Oversight Board

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA— “Philadelphia voters have approved the ballot measure to establish a permanent Prison Oversight Board in the City Charter—marking a major step toward accountability, transparency, and basic human rights in our local jails.

 

“With this vote, our city has sent a clear message: we will no longer look away from the unacceptable conditions faced by incarcerated people and prison employees. This result reflects years of planning, organizing and advocating for transparency and accountability.
 

“We are grateful to the voters, our advocacy partners, and Councilmembers Isaiah Thomas and Nicolas O’Rourke, who worked so hard to make this moment possible. The people have spoken, and they are saying ‘no’ to dangerous and inhumane conditions on State Road and ‘yes’ to oversight, accountability, and dignity.

 

“The Defender Association looks forward to working with the new board, City Council, and community partners to ensure real oversight and lasting change.”

 

# # #

Statement on the Detention of a Defender Client by ICE

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

People living in Philadelphia should have the right to due process, regardless of their immigration status.

 

“Last week, after a Defender Association client’s case was dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of evidence, he was detained by law enforcement and transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even though there was no outstanding warrant.

 

“We’ve raised this matter with the Courts, Philadelphia Police Department, Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Law Department, and City Council, and we are in active communication with immigrant rights organizations across the city.

 

“The Defender Association has long held that no one should be subjected to immigration enforcement while seeking justice in our courts. What happened last week is a deeply troubling reminder of the real risks faced by non-citizens navigating our justice system. It underscores the urgent need for the city to invest in legal protections for immigrant communities, including the creation of a fully staffed Immigration Unit at the Defender Association, a core priority outlined in our FY26 budget request.

 

“We remain committed to protecting the rights of all Philadelphians and fighting for a justice system that is fair and safe for everyone, regardless of immigration status.”

 

# # #

Defender Statement on Non-Attorney Staff Union

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

“The Defender Association of Philadelphia congratulates AFSCME 47 and our non-attorney staff on their successful vote to unionize. We fully support their right to organize and are committed to working in good faith with the Philly Defender Staff Union to bargain for better working conditions and a stronger Defender for our staff and clients.

 

“Our attorneys unionized through a democratic process in 2020, and we are proud to continue that tradition of ensuring all staff have a voice in shaping their workplace. We look forward to collaborating with the newly formed union to build a workplace that reflects our shared commitment to justice, fairness, the well-being of our employees, and service to our clients.

 

“Our staff is the heart of our mission, and we are excited to take this next step together in strengthening the Defender Association as a place where all employees feel valued, supported, and empowered.”

 

# # #

Defender Statement on Philly FY 2026 Budget

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

The Mayor’s budget is bold and ambitious, but indigent defense should make up more than 1% of total spending. 

 

 

“The Mayor’s budget outlines a bold and ambitious vision for Philadelphia’s future—one that emphasizes investment in communities, public safety, and a more just system. But that vision cannot be fully realized without more funding for the Defender Association. In the Mayor’s proposed budget, indigent defense—a constitutional right—accounts for just 1% of total spending.

 

“The Board and staff of the Defender Association of Philadelphia thanks the City Council members who have already recognized the importance of funding public defense. Their support reflects an understanding that public safety isn’t just about enforcement—it’s also about access to justice, effective representation, connection to services, meaningful alternatives to incarceration, and reentry. 

 

“The Defender Association’s budget proposal also includes a request for funding to start our first Immigrant Defense Unit. “Philadelphia’s immigrant communities are already being detained, and navigating a complex legal system, often without representation. Without dedicated funding for our Immigration Defense Unit, more families will be at risk of separation and removal and more residents will be left to fight for their futures alone. Philadelphia can’t claim to be a place of opportunity while denying people their right to representation.

 

“Our budget proposal also highlights the real need for Social Workers to support initiatives including Kensington Wellness Court and work with our youth and adult population.  Social workers are essential in stabilizing clients by connecting them to housing, treatment, and other critical services. Last year, we represented 44,000 adults, and only had 29 social workers on staff. 

 

“If we want a city where justice is truly accessible to all, we must ensure that the resources exist to make that promise a reality. We look forward to working with City Council and the administration this budget season to make these investments a reality and build a safer, more just Philadelphia.”

 

# # #

Defender Testimony: Jail Population Reduction Strategies

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

Testimony on Resolution #240178

On March 4, 2025, Chief Defender Keisha Hudson testified before City Council on Resolution #240718, highlighting urgent reforms to reduce Philadelphia’s jail population. From early bail hearings to forensic recovery programs, the Defender Association is leading efforts to expand alternatives to detention and improve reentry support. Read the full testimony below to learn how policy changes can create a more just and effective system. You can also download a printable copy here.

Watch the testimony video below

Good morning Committee Chairs Jones and Thomas, and members of the Committees on Public Safety and Legislative Oversight. I’d like to thank Councilmember O’Rourke for inviting me here to testify on Resolution No. 240718, and give some of our insights into the actions we should take to safely reduce the jail population and improve conditions for incarcerated people and employees at the jail.

 

My name is Keisha Hudson and I serve as the Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I’ve held this role for 4 years and have been a public defender for the last 22.  

 

Before discussing the challenges and potential solutions, it’s important to note the Philadelphia Prison is required to take people who are court ordered to the jail and hold them for as long as the court orders their detention. The jail can’t send them away, or independently determine they should be released on supervision or for transportation to a substance use treatment facility. They don’t have control over how long the person’s case takes to resolve, whether a detainer will be lifted,  or whether or not the person can afford to post bail to secure their release. They don’t determine how long of a jail sentence a person will receive or how much of that sentence they will be required to serve.

 

And yet, all of these factors play a significant role in the population at the jail and therefore the conditions experienced by incarcerated people.

 

Our office understands that while we can’t control most of the issues related to conditions of confinement, we can, and have, prioritized initiatives that expedite our clients release from the jail, and in some cases avoid detention altogether. These include:

 

Staffing Preliminary Arraignment Court twenty-four  hours a day/seven days a week;

 

Early Bail Review hearings;

 

Emergency Bail hearings; and

 

Our new grant funded Bridge Home project, which helps prepare Early Release Petitions for and provide re-entry support for people released on parole.

 

Preliminary Arraignment

In Philadelphia, the first hearing for anyone arrested on a new criminal offense is a preliminary arraignment. Philadelphia does not have a summons process and so everyone must come through preliminary arraignment for a review of the charges against them and a determination about bail. It is a high volume court room which is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and on holidays. 

 

At that hearing, the arrestee appears by video while advocates from the DAO and Defender are in the courtroom. Unlike most counties in the Commonwealth, people arrested in Philadelphia are represented at this initial bail determination. Unfortunately, advocates have little information available to them to make their best arguments. Defender representatives are in the court house while the clients are attending virtually from police stations throughout the city. The hearings typically last less than two minutes. 

 

With support from the MacArthur Safety and Justice implementation team—including the First Judicial District (FJD), District Attorney’s Office (DAO), Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS), Office of Prosecutor Services (OPS, formerly Major Trials Division), and Philadelphia Police Department (PPD)—our office successfully petitioned to install communications equipment in the courthouse. This allowed us, as capacity permitted, to conduct pre-arraignment interviews with arrestees.This has better enabled our office to not only prepare people for what to expect, but also gather information to present to the magistrate so he or she can make a more informed decision about bail.

 

Early Bail Review

Early Bail Review, or “EBR” hearings typically occur within 5 days of the person’s arrest and present an opportunity for the court to review the appropriateness of a person’s continued detention. These hearings, initiated ten years ago, are now an essential component to the courts’ processes. 

 

To prepare for these hearings, our office developed an expedited interview process and ensured robust advocacy. This includes identifying clients’ social service needs, connecting them to appropriate supports, and providing judges with the information needed to make more informed, individualized decisions. The social service advocates virtually attend the court hearings and are available to provide additional information about resources available to meet clients needs. The workload itself is significant. Last year, our office prepared for and staffed over 4,500 individual EBR hearings.

 

Our ability to address these bail concerns early in the process helps the courts identify people who can be safely released without any undue delay. It alleviates the burden on our overcrowded detention facilities while supporting fairness and a more efficient and equitable judicial process. This benefits those involved in the criminal justice system, as well as the community it serves.

 

While all other stakeholders have sustained their funding from the MacArthur initiative - our office has not. This year our funding from the city to continue the initiatives in preliminary arraignment and early bail review hearings is set to end June 30, 2025.  And our office will require $750,000 to be added to our base budget to sustain this work.

 

Emergency Bail Hearings

The Emergency Bail Hearing is a relatively new strategy and represents some of the best of what we can achieve when system stakeholders work together to tackle the challenge of prison overcrowding. Developed with the support of the Prison, the DAO, and the FJD, our office reviews weekly reports provided by the jail of people who are incarcerated, without detainers, on less than a $100,000 bail. This data is not available to us, and we could not do this project without their support. 

 

Experienced attorneys at our office review the report, work in collaboration with social services as needed, and file for clients to be added to the hearings list. A senior member of the FJD presides over the calendar and makes determination about whether continued detention is warranted or whether the person can be released with or without conditions. A senior member of the Executive Team staffs those hearings.  To date over 100 people have been released without compromising public safety. 

 

Forensic Intensive Recovery

The Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) program was established in 1991 in response to a federal consent decree related to overcrowding in Philadelphia jails. FIR referrals were implemented as a population reduction strategy by removing those in need of treatment. 

 

FIR is an alternative to incarceration program. Essentially, individuals who are incarcerated are referred for evaluation by a FIR evaluator to see if they qualify  for release in favor of placement at a substance abuse or mental health treatment facility. The evaluators are contracted by the City of Philadelphia to conduct the evaluations, generate and distribute reports, and assist in matching the client with an appropriate level of care. Our office processes all FIR referrals for our clients as well as those referred by private and court appointed attorneys.

 

As a result of our attorneys direct experience representing clients, we decided to take a closer look at the wait times people referred to the FIR program experience. From April to June 2024, 654 FIRs were filed for 615 unique individuals. For 37 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed on their behalf during an identical incarceration event so we only counted one FIR. For 2 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed but during different incarceration periods, so we counted them as two unique referrals. So our final referral count was 617 FIRs for 615 individuals. 

 

Our review revealed that on average, it takes over two months for incarcerated people referred to FIR to be released from the jail. It takes an average of 35 days from referral for the incarcerated person to be evaluated and then another 12 days for the report to be generated and circulated to justice system stakeholders. In 18% of referrals (113 individuals), the clients were released from the jail prior to their evaluation and were never evaluated by FIR. This is a missed opportunity to intervene. While we don’t usually discuss re-arrest, 45 of the clients (39%) released prior to their evaluation were subsequently re-arrested and re-admitted to the jail within 6 months. 

 

This process is not a sustainable solution to the substance use crisis we’re facing in Philadelphia. The social services staff in our office can actually connect clients with evaluations and appropriate placements more effectively and efficiently. However, with a limited number of social service advocates supporting all our clients, we currently lack the capacity to provide direct case management and coordination services to fully meet this need.

 

An additional investment in our office to expand our social services capacity to better serve all of our clients with substance use and behavioral health needs–especially those residing in or arrested in Kensington–would go a long way to reducing the jail population and relieving the burden on the FIR program.

 

We would also like to partner with the city agencies that are working to draft the RFP for FIR and designing the scope of work for the contract. We believe that we, as well as stakeholders from the Prison, from the FJD, and from the DAO could have valuable insight into some of the key performance indicators and deliverables necessary to improve the quality of this program.

 

Early Release Petitions

Last year our office was selected to receive a re-entry grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The purpose of our program is to assist with re-entry planning for incarcerated clients. Specifically, a grant-funded re-entry specialist completes a needs-based assessment for incarcerated clients, gathers pertinent mitigation information, and develops pre- and post-release plans to ensure success upon reintegration into the community and help reduce recidivism.  Our attorneys rely on these plans to file petitions for early release for clients serving county jail sentences.

 

Our re-entry specialists provide direct case management upon release to support the client as they navigate parole and transition home. This program works because it connects people with the reentry programs and services that the city already offers. It serves as a complement to the programs that already exist without offering duplicative services. Our service adds to the existing continuum of programming because we are able to anticipate possible releases because our office also files the petitions for release.  As the initiative grows we will continue to connect people to existing programs in a meaningful way and continue to advocate for more predictability in reentry processes.

 

This work not only helps to decarcerate the jail but also provides a bridge of support that also relieves some of the workload from the county parole officers. This is still a pilot program, but we believe with an infusion of funding we could provide similar services to our young people coming home from placement or the youth detention facility who are more susceptible to adult arrest than non delinquency system-involved peers.

 

Conclusion

The Defender Association is committed to reducing the jail population, improving conditions for incarcerated people and jail staff, and creating more alternatives to detention. Sustaining and strengthening these efforts requires increased investment and ongoing collaboration with city leaders and our justice system partners. With more resources for our social services team, faster access to diversion programs, and stronger partnerships, we can create a more effective and equitable system—one that prioritizes rehabilitation, lowers recidivism, and improves public safety for all Philadelphians.

Testimony: Diversion Programs in Kensington

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

On February 26, 2025 Chief Defender Keisha Hudson & Managing Director of Trials Andrew Pappas testified before City Council about how Philly can do better for people struggling with addiction. While programs like the Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP) and Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) are helping, too many end up in jail instead of getting the help they need. Read the full testimony below, or download a printable version here.

Watch the testimony video below:

Good morning, Chairwoman Lozada and Members of the Committee. I’m Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender for the Defender Association of Philadelphia. On behalf of the Defender Association, I want to thank you for inviting us to testify today on the effectiveness of diversion programs for individuals suffering from substance use disorder in the Kensington area.

 

In my 22 years as a public defender, I have represented countless individuals whose struggles with addiction led them into the criminal legal system—many of them had no opportunities for treatment extended to them until they were enmeshed in the criminal legal system. I have seen firsthand how our clients get into the system, what solutions work, and how we can sustain, expand, and strengthen the diversion programs that will help them break the cycle of addiction, succeed in recovery, and successfully reenter their communities. 

 

Accelerated Misdemeanor Program:

 

The Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP) is a post-arrest diversionary program that is available for eligible arrestees with no or minimal criminal histories who are facing charges for non-violent misdemeanors. This program is a collaborative effort between our office, the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disabilities, Public Health Management Corporation, the Philadelphia Police Department and the District Attorney’s Office. In November 2024, stakeholders agreed to expand eligibility criteria, allowing for more individualized participant assessments. AMP Court runs weekly and recent investments from city council, led by Councilmember Squilla and supported by many members of this committee, have improved our capacity to provide direct legal services and connection to treatment providers.

 

In the last four months (October 2024 - January 2025), we observed 446 referrals to AMP and only one revocation from the program. This high rate of success is in part attributable to the treatment providers presence in the courtroom, real time updates on program availability, and the direct transportation to treatment services they provide. Our office is also physically present to provide warm hand-offs for our clients directly to the treatment providers. 

 

Forensic Intensive Recovery (FIR) Program:

 

The FIR program was established in 1991 in response to a federal consent decree related to overcrowding in Philadelphia jails. FIR referrals were implemented as a population reduction strategy by removing those in need of treatment. While an alternative to incarceration program, and not a true diversion initiative, this program is typically discussed within the context of diversionary programming in the city.

 

Essentially, individuals who are incarcerated are referred for evaluation by a FIR evaluator to see if they qualify  for release in favor of placement at a substance abuse or mental health treatment facility. The evaluators are contracted by the City of Philadelphia to conduct the evaluations, generate and distribute reports, and assist in matching the client with an appropriate level of care. Our office processes all FIR referrals for our clients as well as those referred by private and court appointed attorneys.

 

As a result of our attorneys direct experience representing clients, we decided to take a closer look at the wait times people referred to the FIR program experience. We looked at referrals made from April to June 2024.  During that time period 654 FIRs were filed for 615 unique individuals. For 37 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed on their behalf during an identical incarceration event so we only counted one FIR. For 2 individuals, more than 1 FIR was filed but during different incarceration periods, so we counted them as two unique referrals. So our final referral count was 617 FIRs for 615 individuals. 

 

Our review revealed that on average, it takes over two months for incarcerated people referred to FIR to be released from the jail. On average it takes 35 days from referral for the incarcerated person to be evaluated and then another 12 days for the report to be generated and circulated to justice system stakeholders. In 18% of referrals (113 individuals), the clients were released from the jail prior to their evaluation and were never evaluated by FIR. This is a missed opportunity to intervene. While we don’t usually discuss re-arrest, 45 of the clients (39%) released prior to their evaluation were subsequently re-arrested and re-admitted to the jail within 6 months. 

 

This process is simply not a sustainable solution to the substance use crisis we are facing in the city right now. Here at Defender, our social services staff are able to connect clients with evaluations and appropriate placement more effectively and efficiently than this process. But with limited social service advocates, serving all of our clients’ social services needs, we do not have the capacity to provide direct case management and coordination services to meet this need.

 

An additional investment in our office to expand our social services capacity to better serve all of our clients with substance use and behavioral health needs, especially those residing in or arrested in Kensington would go a long way to reducing the jail population, reducing recidivism, and offering the types of interventions people need when they are in the best position to voluntarily accept help and participate in treatment.

 

The Neighborhood Wellness Court (NWC) represents an important acknowledgment that substance use disorder is a public health crisis, not a criminal justice issue. But it ignores some of the more complicated realities of addiction and recovery. In theory, NWC offers participants an opportunity to engage in treatment and social services instead of incarceration. While this approach has the potential to help some individuals stabilize their lives, the approach relies on the threat of prosecution for a summary offense, without more, to incentivize participation.

 

Our experience as defense attorneys working with this particular population tells us that, as currently constructed, its impact will likely be limited by several key challenges:

 

  • Capacity Constraints – Wellness Court serves too few people. Last year alone, the Defender Association handled more than 1,500 new adult cases linked to arrests near Kensington & Allegheny, yet only a small fraction of those individuals would be able to access this program.

 

  • Uneven Access to Immediate Treatment Services – While most defendants can be connected to services, individuals who are not eligible (due to out of county warrants, violations of probation, wanted cards, etc) are unable to access same day services because they are sent to State Road. This not only impedes the person’s direct access to treatment but also increases the prison population.

    This isn’t just an increase in the number of people—it’s an increase to the prison’s burden of caring for people with complex medical needs, at a time when severe staffing shortages at the jails make it difficult to meet basic care standards. If diversion is to work, it must be swift and seamless—every day in jail increases the risk of relapse, overdose, and further destabilization. It also strains our city’s resources as our jail is already embroiled in federal litigation over conditions of confinement.

 

  • Lack of Holistic Support from Trusted Resources – To its credit, the NWC has leveraged the relationships established through the Police Assisted Diversion program and partnered with a number of well respected treatment providers who offer a spectrum of services in the city.

    The challenge is that these providers focus solely on substance abuse treatment, neglecting clients’ legal issues, housing needs, and underlying disabilities. Substance use and mental health treatment needs are only part of the myriad challenges faced by many of our clients. The ramifications of their legal, family, or housing situations can be overwhelming, and often cause them to miss treatment or court scheduled court dates.

    Investing in our office to provide social services, case management and legal representation could increase engagement in treatment, reduce non-appearance at subsequent court events, and prevent subsequent engagement with the criminal legal system. Peer Navigators from our office could also be used to help increase voluntary attendance for treatment and other services.

 

  • Limitations On Eligibility for Transitional Housing  – The Riverside Wellness Village is exemplary in its recognition that recovery cannot happen without stable housing. It addresses the very real issue that many participants leave treatment with nowhere to go, making their path forward far more difficult. However, in recent weeks, we’ve seen that limiting these beds to people leaving inpatient facilities prevents those whose main issue is housing—not substance use—from accessing them until a permanent solution is found.

    The beds are available, but homeless individuals processed through Wellness Court for trespassing are not permitted to stay there and are instead directed to apply for housing through DBHIDS, a process which can take 3 to 4 weeks for placement.

 

  • Legal Barriers – While wellness court provides an alternative to incarceration, it still requires individuals to enter the court system first. We need to rethink diversion as a truly pre-arrest intervention. This avoids the trauma of arrest for the clients but also reduces the administrative burden on officers who are actively present and patrolling the Kensington neighborhood. This puts patrol officers in a challenging role as both social worker and police officer.  By contrast, teams of social workers, peer navigators, and those conducting outreach outside the criminal justice system, could accomplish the same goal pre-arrest by making same-day, immediate, voluntary and direct connections to people at risk for arrest.

 

Beyond Wellness Court: A Smarter Strategy 

 

With over two decades of experience defending people in this system, I can say with certainty: we cannot arrest or prosecute our way out of this crisis. We need an approach that prioritizes treatment first, not court first.

 

Instead of relying solely on post-arrest diversion, we should be investing in:

 

  • A Kensington Pretrial Diversion Hub – A dedicated resource center in Kensington where individuals can access treatment, housing, and behavioral health support before they face criminal charges. The facility that the city established at 265 E. Lehigh Avenue can easily serve this purpose. If councilmembers have not yet toured the facility, I’d encourage you to do so. But a physical building alone is only one component necessary for this effort to succeed. If we do not incorporate basic tenets of public health, prevention, protection, and promotion of health and wellness, into substance use disorder treatment, we will not achieve the long term goal of eradicating addiction and addressing quality of life for all Philadelphians, especially residents of Kensington.

 

  • Sustained Early Bail Review Services – With the support of the MacArthur Safety and Justice initiative, our office redesigned our interview process and dedicated experienced attorneys to staff early bail review hearings. These hearings prevent unnecessary incarceration and ensure people who may need additional support–like substance abuse treatment–have access to them immediately upon their release.Over the last five years, we’ve relied on our direct experience litigating these hearings to collaborate with the other stakeholders to establish reasonable program criteria and avoid the unnecessary pretrial detention of people who can be safely released. While all of the other justice system stakeholders have sustained funding from the MacArthur initiatives, Defender’s funding has not been sustained. Despite the city’s lack of commitment, we’ve expanded our decarceration efforts to include emergency bail hearings, reducing the prison population and decreasing reliance on FIR as an alternative to incarceration.

 

But we need to couple these early bail review hearings with meaningful opportunities for diversionary programming. We could accomplish this by expanding eligibility for

 

  • Housing as the Foundation – Without housing, every diversion effort will fail. We need to expand transitional and permanent supportive housing tied to diversion programs so that it is not limited to only those people with the most significant treatment needs. Furthermore, we need to prioritize all justice system-involved people for housing assistance. Instead of serving as an additional barrier to housing, an arrest, particularly for something like trespass, could and should signal that this person is most in need of housing support.

 

  • Community-Led Solutions – The most effective interventions are those that do not require court involvement at all. We need more investment in harm reduction, peer-led outreach, and direct connections to treatment services.


Conclusion

Our office’s experience in representing clients from marginalized and vulnerable populations have shown us firsthand the consequences of policies that rely on punishment rather than support. I myself have represented people whose struggles with addiction were met with incarceration instead of intervention. And I have seen how diversion—when done right—can change lives.

 

The Defender Association is committed to working with City Council, the courts, and community partners to implement meaningful solutions. But we must recognize that real diversion happens outside of the courtroom. If we want to reduce crime, save lives, and strengthen our communities, we must move away from criminalization and toward treatment, housing, and real public health responses. This includes prevention initiatives that address root causes of substance use, including mental health issues and exposure to trauma. It includes investing in protections for vulnerable people and creating meaningful emergency response plans for those whose involvement in the criminal legal system is tied to substance use disorder. It also promotes health and wellness by removing barriers linked to poverty, racism, and gender discrimination.

 

Thank you again for including the perspective of Defender Association in this critical conversation. My team and I welcome any questions you may have today or in the near future.

Keisha Hudson Testimony on Legal Services for Immigrants

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

On January 22, 2025, Chief Defender Keisha Hudson delivered testimony before City Council on the increased need to provide legal representation to undocumented people in Philadelphia. Read the full written testimony below, click here for a printable version, or watch the video:

 

 

Good morning Chairwoman Gilmore Richardson, Vice Chair Brooks, and Councilmembers Bass, Landau, O’ Neill, Phillips, and Squilla. I’m Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender  at the Defender Association of Philadelphia. 


Thank you Councilmember Landau for introducing this resolution and for the opportunity to present to the committee the current legal services Defender provides to clients facing immigration consequences from their involvement with the criminal justice system and our plan to expand our legal services to provide direct representation to Philadelphians, including those not involved with the criminal legal system, who are at risk of deportation.


Currently our office has two part time ‘crimmigration’ attorneys who split their time between us and the Nationalities Services Center (NSC) and one mitigation specialist. This team works in conjunction with our appellate attorneys to advise our attorneys as to the immigration consequences our clients will face as a result of their involvement with the criminal legal system. 


Client Profile: Mr. B


This team helps people facing immigration challenges, like Mr. B., a non-citizen from the Dominican Republic who last came to the U.S. in 2022. He had been removed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before, but he returned after the Trinitarios gang—who had already harmed him—tried to kill him again. In 2023, he was arrested in Philadelphia for a first-time DUI and later detained by ICE in another state.


Our crimmigration attorney, Whitney Viets, and mitigator, Daniela Tovar Martinez, put together a strong request for his release. They included detailed evidence showing his good character, strong family ties in the U.S., and the serious health issues of his loved ones back home. His defense attorney, Edward Jilozian, helped get his DUI case withdrawn, which strengthened our case for release. These requests are rarely approved, but in Mr. B.’s case, ICE granted his release last summer.


Now, Mr. B. is able to keep supporting his 7-year-old twin daughters, who have severe asthma, and his elderly mother, who is battling cancer. His release means he can continue to help pay for their medical care while he waits for his immigration hearing, which may not happen until 2027 or later.


Our Current “Crimmigration” Legal Representation


Currently our immigration work, like that involving Mr. B., is funded through our partnership with the NSC, the organization which holds the contract with the city to provide immigration services. These services are currently  funded by the Pennsylvania Immigrant Family Unit Project (PAIFUP) grant. This project provides legal representation to people detained by ICE through the PAIFUP who lived, worked, or studied in Philadelphia before detention, or plan to reunite with family in the city after their release.


Services supported by the PAIFUP project use a universal representation model that screens eligible individuals for services and offers representation regardless of the strength of their immigration case. When capacity allows, the services include representation of not just detained persons, but also people who reside, work in, or go to school in Philadelphia who are at risk of detention and deportation.  


Since 2019, PAIFUP has grown from just 3 to roughly 5 full time attorneys, and has represented 213 members of the community. But the overwhelming majority of people processed by Philadelphia Immigration Court still lack legal representation. Since October 2019, 65% of the 102,671 deportation cases processed by Philadelphia Immigration Court were unrepresented individuals. Legal representation matters–39% of PAIFUP clients whose cases were completed have achieved outcomes that allow them to remain in the United States versus only 19% of unrepresented cases.


Representation also helps to maintain strong and stable communities in the city. For example, among people who were initially detained, 45 percent of clients were released from custody, either on bond or at the conclusion of their legal cases, allowing them to stay within the community and with their families or jobs.


Additionally, representation enables our clients to effectively raise their legitimate defenses with 70 percent of clients applying for some legal defense against deportation, and among these people, 80 percent pursued protection-based claims for relief, like asylum.


The Case for Expansion of Services


With the support of the Nationalities Services Center (NSC), and other partner groups currently receiving funding through the city’s contract with NSC, we seek resources to expand our immigration services and take on a larger role in the administration of PAIFUP.

 

We will keep working with our partners to make sure a portion of PAIFUP funds are used to support peer-to-peer support, helping organizations share best practices in managing finances and contracts for this statewide legal effort. We’ll also continue supporting community groups and legal service providers to make sure no Pennsylvania resident faces detention or deportation without a lawyer.

 

In practice, this proposal would mean that the Defender Association will create an Immigration Defense Unit within our office, staffed with attorney and non-attorney members who specialize in defense and removal practice in federal court. This unit will ideally comprise 13 attorneys and non-attorneys, including 2 legal fellows.

 

A recent report estimates that nearly 50,000 Philadelphians may be at risk of detention or deportation in the upcoming years.To meet anticipated needs, we believe the Defender Association should expand its partnership with the existing network of community organizations, house all of the services in one shop and invest in additional staffing similar to other large scale public defender and community partnerships in places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. This will ensure more people have a chance of receiving quality representation by doubling the staff currently working on these issues, while expanding service capacity by allowing for much more effective representation.

 

Ultimately, this restructuring would: streamline divisions of labor and case acceptance; prevent duplication of resources; add professional and administrative staff to assist with investigative, family support, and social services;  and house all part time employees under one shop and one supervisor.

 

To fund this project the Defender proposes absorbing the PAIFUP funding and seeking an additional investment from the city of $800,000.


Conclusion


While the future of undocumented members of our community is uncertain, we must anticipate that members of immigrant communities throughout the city will face even greater challenges in the years ahead. That’s why it’s crucial for our office to expand its legal representation for immigration. Now more than ever people at risk of deportation need a streamlined, well-resourced, and responsive legal team to ensure their individual rights are protected and they have access to the resources and advocacy they need. 


During the first Trump administration, our city faced challenges when federal funding was delayed or withdrawn because our city’s policies did not align with the federal requirements. In the upcoming months or years, the city may be faced with tough economic choices as it balances the needs of our community. 


Committing to an expansion of PAIFUP’s and the Defender’s immigration services will allow us to be better prepared to anticipate upcoming shifts in policy and ensure that we are equipped to help Philadelphians navigate the complexities of immigration law in this ever changing environment.

 

Defender Statement on Juvenile Detention Special Report

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA—”Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer special report highlighting the alarming rates of juvenile detention and placement and the abusive conditions faced by young people in the justice system brings much-needed attention to a heartbreaking reality. We’re grateful to the Inquirer for shining a light on this issue and for sharing perspectives that show the real impact of these systemic failures. 

 

“We are also grateful for the exceptional advocacy of our leadership team and public defender, Brendan Lokka and to our client, Abdul Anderson. Our youth often express how terrified they are to speak up on their experiences in detention and placement. Adbul’s bravery in coming forward and speaking to his experience shines a bright light on what so many of our youth go through as they navigate an already traumatic and detrimental juvenile justice system.
 

“For too long, our youth justice system has fallen short in providing the care, safety, support, education, and rehabilitation that children need. The conditions described in the story aren’t isolated—they’re part of a larger problem rooted in outdated policies that focus on punishment instead of prevention, alternatives to detention and placement, and rehabilitation. The Defender Association has been calling for action and offering solutions, but meaningful change will require bold contributions from every leader and organization that plays a role in our system.  

 

“We’re committed to working together to build a youth justice system that prioritizes protecting and uplifting young people rather than causing further harm. We invite city and state leaders, community groups, and advocates to join us in making the changes our youth desperately need. 

 

“This is a moment to reflect on how we can shift resources from detention to supporting youth and families at home and in the community. If detention or placement is the only option, we must  invest in the trauma-informed rehabilitation and robust education and reentry support they deserve so that they can thrive.” 

 

# # #
 

Keisha Hudson on Passage of Prison Oversight Bill

Posted on by GJackson@philadefender.org

PHILADELPHIA—“The Defender Association of Philadelphia applauds City Council–in particular, bill sponsors Isaiah Thomas and Nicolas O’Rourke–for the unanimous passage of prison oversight legislation. This bill represents a crucial step toward accountability and transparency in Philadelphia’s jails. 

 

“Managing over 4,000 individuals in secure facilities is a monumental task that requires effective oversight and community partnership. This legislation is an important first step toward building trust and ensuring the City’s correctional system is accountable for the safety of prison employees and incarcerated people.

 

“The passage of this bill is a pivotal moment for reform, but to be effective, every system stakeholder must collaborate on the implementation of this legislation and other solutions to the systemic challenges within our jails. The Defender Association remains committed to collaborating with justice system partners to create meaningful and lasting change.”

 

 

# # #

Follow us: @PhillyDefenders